The effects of computer-animated dissection versus preserved - Eric

ED 460 018 SE 065 642
AUTHOR Kariuki, Patrick; Paulson, Ronda TITLE The Effects of Computer Animated Dissection versus Preserved
Animal Dissection on the Student Achievement in a High School Biology Class.
PUB DATE 2001-11-00 NOTE 19p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South
Educational Research Association (30th, Little Rock, AR, November 14-16, 2001).
PUB TYPE Reports Research (143) Speeches/Meeting Papers (150) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Academic Achievement; Anatomy; *Biology; *Computer Uses in
Education; *Dissection; Educational Technology; High Schools; Laboratory Animals; Science Instruction; *Science Laboratories; Teaching Methods
IDENTIFIERS *Frogs
ABSTRACT The purpose of thib study was to examine the effectiveness
of computer-animated dissection techniques versus the effectiveness of traditional dissection techniques as related to student achievement. The sample used was 104 general biology students from a small, rural high school in Northeast Tennessee. Random selection was used to separate the students into an experimental group and a control group. The control group dissected a preserved earthworm. The experimental group dissected the earthworm using a CD-ROM dissection tool. Each student then took a test over the earthworm. This exact procedure was then used with the dissection of frog. Data were analyzed using a t-Test for Independent Means. Results indicated that there was a significant difference between the academic achievement of students in the control group versus students in the experimental group. The academic achievement of males in the control group versus males in the experimental group and females in the control group versus females in the experimental group was also examined. The data were analyzed using a t-Test for Independent Means. The results indicated that there was no significant difference in the academic achievement of the two groups. Further research is needed in this area. (Contains 22 references.) (Author/DDR)
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document.
Traditional Vs. Computer Animated Dissection 1
Running head: TRADITIONAL VS. COMPUTER ANIMATED DISSECTION
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS
BEEN GRANTED BY
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
4......This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it.
0 Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality.
Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position cr policy.
The Effects of Computer Animated Dissedion Versus Preserved Animal Dissection on
the Student Achievement in a High School Biology Class
Patrick Kariuki
Ronda Paulson
Milligan College
A paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Mid-South Educational Research Association
Little Rock, Arkansas- November 14-17, 2001
2 BESTCOPYAVAILABLE
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of computer-animated
dissection techniques versus the effectiveness of traditional dissection techniques as
related to student achievement. The sample used was 104 general biology students from
a small, rural high school in Northeast Tennessee. Random selection was used to
separate the students into an experimental group and a control group. The cOntrol group
dissected a preserved earthworm. The experimental group dissected the earthworm using
a CD-Rom dissection tool. Each student then took a test over the earthworm. This exact
procedure was then used with the dissection of the frog. Data were analyzed using a T-
Test for Independent Means. Results indicated that there was a significant difference
between the academic achievement of students in the control group versus students in the
experimental group. The academic achievement of males in the control group versus
males in the experimental group and females in the control group versus females in the
experimental group was also examined. The data were analyzed using a T-Test for
Independent Means. The results indicated that there was no significant difference in the
academic achievement of the two groups. Further research is needed in this area.
Review of Literature
For years high school biology has been taught in much the same way. Ask most
people about their own high school biology class and they will have very similar
memories. Even if they do not remember the teacher, the other students, or much of the
material, they will remember the dissecting. The dissection of preserved specimens has
been part of the biology curriculum since the early 1900's (Kinzie, 1993). The question
arises however, do science teachers continue to include the dissection of invertebrates,
vertebrates and amphibians because it is the best method of presenting the anatomy of
these animals, or do science teachers continue to dissect because it is the way it has
always been done? (Haury, 1996)
Resistance to the use of animals for dissection has continued to grow since the
mid to late 80's. There were, and still are, many arguments against the dissection of
animals in the high school biology classroom. Some of the strongest objections have
come from those who disagree with the morality of using animals. Many researchers
argue that science educators cannot instill an appreciation for life if they continually take
life in the name of science (Strauss, 1994; National Association of Biology Teachers,
1990; Russell, 1980).
A second argument comes from those who believe that dissection infringes upon
the students' rights. Many researchers feel that students are not properly informed of
their rights to refuse to dissect. They also fear that there is not an equivalent assignment
for those who choose not to dissect. Both California and Florida have passed legislature
protecting the rights of those students who do not want to dissect (Balcombe, 1997;
Orlans, 1988).
The most recent argument against dissection in the classroom comes from those
who believe that computer animated dissection is just as effective as traditional
dissection. Software companies are currently bombarding teachers with new and
improved programs for classroom use. Proponents of computer-animated dissection
often stress the economical benefit of buying software one time versus buying of
preserved specimens year after year. Teachers are also enticed by the idea of a quick and
clean solution to exam and lab make-ups (Anzovin, 1993).
With all the information that is out there about dissection, it is hard for a science
educator to know what to do. For years, traditional dissection has been used and has been
effective. However, education must change with the times. Is computer-animated
dissection an effective means for teaching the anatomical structures of animals? Science
educators must make their decision based upon what is the most beneficial for the
learning process of their students.
Traditional Dissection
There are several goals in the high school biology curriculum. Two of the main
goals are to understand the process of scientific inquiry and to foster a reverence for life.
Proponents of dissection argue that both curriculum objectives can be taught and assessed
by the use of dissection. The key to success is the use of carefully planned and monitored
dissection activities. Allowing students to use scientific inquiry to explore the internal
structures of different organisms creates an appreciation for the uniqueness of life. The
teachers can then use that newfound appreciation to stress the importance of preserving
and respecting such life forms (Berman, 1984; Igelsrud, 1987).
5
Another reason some educators continue to use traditional dissection in the
classroom is the lack of information available in the literature about the effectiveness of
computer-based alternatives (Haury, 1996). Many teachers are not ready to discontinue
the use of what they consider to be an effective tool, and research supports this idea.
The use of traditional dissection results in greater student learning when compared with
non-dissection alternatives. In 1999, Marszalek & Lockard studied a population of 354
seventh-grade students in fourteen classes in a suburban school district. The students
were divided into three treatment groups: a desktop microworld group, an interactive
tutorial group, and a conventional frog dissection group. Marszalek & Lockard found
that the use of conventional dissection resulted in a greater immediate gain of knowledge.
It was also determined that students using traditional dissection techniques actually
showed lower science anxiety than students who used a CD tutorial or a desktop
microworld program. As a result, many educators feel that more and better simulations
need to be developed before they move away from the use of traditional dissection.
Some educators still assert that there is simply no substitute for dissection (Thomas &
Hooper, 1991; Offner, 1993).
Students' Attitudes Toward Dissection
Often, the effectiveness of an educational tool is measured by looking at student
achievement. However, there are other factors that also need to be taken into
consideration when monitoring effectiveness. A student's attitude toward dissection is a
factor that needs to be considered. Most students dissect, when asked to, without dispute.
However, The Humane Society of the United States published several studies that
6
showed many students have serious reservations about the dissection of animals (Adkins
& Lock 1994; Bennett, 1994). Most teachers, however, report only a three to five
percent objection rate. This discrepancy is attributed to the fact that a large majority of
students never openly object to dissection. This is in part because their school
environment does not foster an atmosphere in which objection would be acceptable.
Another reason for such discrepancies is that most students and parents are not given
proper notification and education on the topic of dissection-choice laws (Balcombe,
1998).
Other researchers have also studied students' attitudes toward dissection. In
1988, Alan Bowd conducted a study in which he found that out of a random sample of
191 undergraduate students surveyed about their high school experience with dissection,
30% reported an either positive or neutral emotional response to dissection. On the other
hand, 27% of the students reported a negative emotional response toward the dissection
process, and another 38% reported both negative and positive emotions. Bowd
concluded therefore, more than half of the students in that study experienced negative
feelings.
In 1986, 211 college students and 39 life science professionals were surveyed.
Out of those polled only 35% felt that students enjoyed dissection. Ironically, 67% felt
that dissection was an effective tool and that much could be learned through dissection
(Sieber, 1986).
A similar study was conducted in 1992. Out of 468 fourteen and fifteen-year-old
students, 73% felt that it was wrong to breed animals for dissection. Out of that same
7
sample, 84% wanted an alternative to dissection and 38% would object completely to the
dissection of any animal (Millet & Lock, 1992).
Proponents of dissection, however, look to the findings of a 1994 study conducted
by Strauss and Kinzie. The sample came from two high school biology classes. The
results from their research showed students who dissect feel more positive about
dissection after the experience. Over time the students actually valued the use of animal
dissection more and more, whereas the students who used simulation techniques retained
very negative feelings toward traditional dissection.
Computer-Animated Dissection
There have been studies conducted on the effectiveness of these high-tech and
low-tech alternatives. Jonathon Balcombe (1998), in conjunction with The Humane
Society of the United States, has compiled a collection of 12 studies which concluded
that students using alternative materials (CD-ROMs, models, etc.) performed at least as
well as students who used traditional dissection.
Many studies have been conducted on the effectiveness of computer-animated
dissection techniques versus traditional dissection at all levels of education. Several
research studies have focused on secondary schools (Zirkel & Zirkel, 1997), the first of
which occurred in 1968. Fowler & Brosius compared the use of a filmstrip with the
actual dissection of a frog when teaching tenth-graders. They measured student
achievement and student attitudes using a sample of 150 students. According to their
findings, the filmstrip group outscored the conventional dissection group. Unfortunately,
Fowler & Brosius did not use inferential analysis on their descriptive results and
8
therefore failed to disprove their findings were not due to chance alone (Zirkel & Zirkel,
1997). Another study compared students who learned via lecture versus students who
actually dissected. The results showed that the lecture group scored higher but there was
no difference when attitude was tested (McCollum, 1988).
In a similar study, Kinzie & Strauss (1994) conducted an experiment in which
they compared the use of traditional dissection with the use of the Interactive Frog
Dissection. For this experiment, the population was two high school biology classes.
Using random selection, one group used traditional frog dissection while the other group
used the Interactive Frog Dissection. They concluded that there was no significant
difference in achievement scores between the two groups.
Conclusion
The current research reviewed on traditional dissection versus computer-
animated dissection was relatively consistent (Zirkel & Zirkel, 1997). Most studies
concluded that there appeared to be no significant difference in the students'
achievements, but there was a difference in the students' attitudes toward dissection.
Students who used traditional dissection were less likely to disapprove of dissection than
those students who used an alternative to dissection (Kinzie, Strauss & Foss, 1993;
Kinzie & Strauss, 1994). Research also supported that many computer-animated
alternatives work well as introductions or supplements to an actual dissection (Marszalek
& James, 1999). However, all of the studies concluded with recommendations for further
research to be done. The findings must be sustained by further research in order to know
if dissection alternatives have any significant educational value (Kinzie & Strauss, 1991).
9
Methodology and Procedure
The population of the study was taken from a small, rural high school in
Northeast Tennessee. The town in which the high school is located had a population of
approximately 11,931 with thirty-nine percent of residences having school-age children.
The high school consisted of approximately eight hundred students ranging from ninth
through twelfth grade. Of those eight hundred students, one hundred and forty-four were
part of the Free Lunch Program. Thirty-seven students received lunches that were
reduced in price. The population of the high school was ninety-five percent Caucasian,
three percent African-American, and slightly more than one percent Asian and Hispanic.
The racial background of the surrounding community was very similar with ninety-five
percent Caucasian, three percent African-American, one percent Asian and Hispanic, and
less than one percent other. Sixty-one percent of those who lived in the surrounding
community graduated from high school and thirteen percent had received a bachelor's
degree or higher.
The sample used in the study was 104 general biology students. The students
were all assigned to the same teacher and were spread over four classes. All four biology
classes were heterogeneously assigned according to student ability. Out of the 104 total
students, 53 were male and 51 Were female. There were 74 freshmen, 23 sophomores, 6
juniors, and 1 senior in the sample. Regarding ethnic diversity, 3 of the 104 students
were African-American, 1 student was Hispanic, and the rest were Caucasian. Random
assignment was used to separate the students into two groups, the experimental group and
1 0
the control group. The experimental group had 50 students, 26 males and 24 females.
The control group had 54 students, 27 males and 27 females.
There were two teacher-designed assessment tools used in the study. These
assessment tools consisted of two tests adopted from a general biology test bank. The
first section of each test consisted of multiple-choice questions. On the second page of
the tests, students were given a word bank and asked to identify parts of the earthworm's
or frog's internal and external anatomy using an actual earthworm or frog specimen. The
structures were marked by flags, which had numbers on them that corresponded to the
appropriate answer blanks on the tests. On the last page of the tests students were asked
to label drawings of the internal and external features of the earthworm or frog. Both
tests were given two days after the dissection of the earthworm or the frog, with only a
day of review separating the dissection and the test.
Procedures
The researcher sought permission from the school principal and administration
before the study was conducted. After permission was granted, the study began with 104
general biology students. The students were randomly assigned to the experimental and
control groups. The experimental group had 50 students and the control group had 54
students. All of the students were given information about the earthworm by the
researcher, using the same methods of instruction. The students defined pertinent
vocabulary, took notes from an overhead projector, and watched a video dissection of an
earthworm. On lab day, both groups were given a laboratory guide that included general
questions about the earthworm's internal and external anatomy. The only difference
being, the laboratory guide given to the experimental group included questions, as well as
ii
a thorough explanation of how to use the CD-ROM. The control group stayed in the
classroom, worked in groups of two, and dissected a preserved earthworm. The
experimental group went to the school's computer lab, under the researcher's
supervision, and worked in groups of two. The experimental group then dissected an
earthworm using a CD-ROM dissection tool, DissectionWorks. On the day following the
lab, all students reviewed together in preparation for the test. On the second day after the
dissection, students completed a test over the earthworm. This exact procedure was also
used with the dissection of the frog. Data for analysis were collected using two teacher-
made tests covering the function and structure of the anatomical features of the
earthworm and the frog. The first section of each test consisted of multiple-choice
questions, which were taken from the test bank that accompanies the biology textbook.
On the second page of the tests, students were given a word bank and asked to identify
parts of the earthworm's or frog's internal and external anatomy using an actual
earthworm or frog specimen. The structures were marked by flags, which had numbers
on them that corresponded to the appropriate answer blanks on the tests. On the last page
of the tests students were asked to label drawings of the internal and external features of
the earthworm or frog. Both tests were given two days after the dissection of the
earthworm or the frog, with only a day of review separating the dissection and the test.
Results
Three research questions were used to guide the analysis of the data. Each
research question was followed by a research hypothesis. Research questions 1, 2 and 3
wete analyzed by using t-test for independent means. All data were analyzed using a .05
level of significance.
Research Questions
1. Is there a difference in student achievement between students who use CD-ROM
dissection tools and students who use preserved animal specimens?
2. Is there a difference in the academic achievement of the females in the control group
versus females in the experimental group?
3. Is there a difference in academic achievement of the males in the control group versus
males in the experimental group?
The results of independent t-test for question 1 indicated a significant difference
(t= 2.026, df 102). Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. T-test for independent
means for research questions 2 and 3 were not significant (t= 1.04, df 46; t= 1.84, df 51
respectively). The results for students using CD-ROM and those using preserved animals
is displayed in Table 1.
Table 1
Group (M) df SD t-value Sig. (two-tailed)
Experimental 71.28 102 13.13 2.026 .04*
Control 76.49 13.07
Note. *p < .05.
Discussion
When research question 1 was examined, is there a difference in student
achievement between students who use a CD-Rom dissection tool and students who use a
preserved animal specimen, a T-Test for Independent Means was conducted. The results
of the study indicated that there was a significant difference between the control group
and the experimental group (t = 2.026, df 102, p < .05). Therefore, the null hypothesis
was rejected.
The data analysis indicated that students who used a preserved animal specimen
scored higher on related chapter tests than students who used a CD-Rom dissection tool.
There were several reasons for the significant difference between the mean scores. First,
as stated in the literature review, the use of conventional dissection techniques results in a
greater immediate gain of knowledge (Marszalek & Lockard, 1999). When students
participate in an authentic learning task, such as dissection, there is a greater retention of
knowledge.
The results of this study were contrary to much of the available research on this
topic. The majority of the research used in the literature review indicated that there was
no significant difference between the academic achievement of the students who use
preserved animals and those who use interactive video for dissection (Kinzie, Foss, &
Powers (1993); Kinzie & Strauss (1994)). However, in this study the control group, after
dissecting a preserved animal specimen, found it easier to identify the anatomical
structures of that animal on the test. Students who used an authentic method of
dissection, retained more knowledge of the anatomical structures of the earthworm and
the frog and thus received higher scores on the related tests. This research study
4
therefore indicated that the authentic task of dissection increased the retention of
knowledge to a greater degree than the virtual experience of the CD-Rom dissection.
In regard to research questions 2, is there a difference in the academic
achievement of females in the control group versus females in the experimental group,
and in regard to research question 3, is there a difference in the academic achievement of
males in the control group versus males in the experimental group, a T-Test for
Independent Means was conducted. The results indicated that for both research question
2 and 3 there was no significant difference between the control group and the
experimental group (t = 1.04, df 46, p > .05; t = 1.84, df 51, p > .05) respectively.
Although the research indicated that there was a significant difference between
the academic achievement of the control group versus the experimental group, with
regard to gender, there was no significant difference. The research indicated that when
studied individually, the females in the control group did not score significantly higher
than the females in the experimental group. Also, the males in the control group did not
score significantly higher than the males in the experimental group. However, when the
mean scores for females in the control group were compared to the mean scores for the
females in the experimental group, the results indicated that the mean score for the
control group was higher than the mean score for the experimental (control M = 73.61,
experimental M= 69.98) although not significant. Consequently, the mean score for the
males in the control group was higher than the mean score for males in the experimental
group (control M = 79.37, experimental M = 72.48) although not significant. Therefore,
this superior performance of the males and females in the control group could account for
the significant difference in performance when the control group and experimental group
were used as a unit of analysis.
Conclusions
This research was conducted to examine the effectiveness of computer-animated
dissection techniques versus the effectiveness of traditional dissection techniques as
related to student achievement in the high school biology classroom. The results of this
study indicated that there was a significant difference in the academic achievement of
students who used traditional dissection techniques versus students who used computer-
animated techniques.
References
Adkins, J., & Lock, R. (1994). Using animals in secondary education: A pilot
survey. Journal of Biological Education, 28 (1), 48-52.
Anzovin, S. (1993). The cutting edge. Compute, 15 (4), 90.
Balcombe, J. (1997). Student/teacher conflict regarding animal dissection.
American Biology Teacher, 59 (1), 22-25.
Balcombe, J. (1998). Animal dissection. (ERIC Document No. ED 423 113).
Bennett, J. (1994). New survey shows Colorado students want a choice. Good
Medicine, 3 (3), 6.
Berman, W. (1984). Dissection dissected. The Science Teacher, 51 (6), 42-49.
Bowd, A. D. (1988). Humane education: The educational dilemma. Paper
presented at the international conference "The Status of Animals". British Veterinary
Association Animal Welfare foundation, Nottingham, England.
Fowler, H. S., & Brosius, E. (1968). A research study on the values gained from
dissection of animals in secondary school biology. Science Education, 52, 55-57.
Haury, D. L. (1996). Alternatives to animal dissection in school science classes.
(ERIC Document No. ED 402 155).
Igelsrud, D. (1987). Animal rights and welfare. The American Biology Teacher,
49, 252-256.
Kinzie, M., Foss, M. J., & Powers, S. (1993). Use of dissection related
courseware by low-ability high school students: A qualitative inquiry. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 41, 87-101.
Marszalek, C. S., & Lockard, J. (1999). Which way to jump: Conventional frog
dissection, CD-tutorial, or microworld? (ERIC Document No. ED 436 157).
McCollum, T. (1988). The effect of animal dissections on student acquisition of
knowledge and attitudes (Doctoral dissertation, University of Cincirmati, 1987).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 48, A7592.
Millet, K., & Lock, R. (1992). GCSE students' attitudes toward animal use:
Some implications for biology/science teachers. Journal of Biological Education, 26 (3),
204-208.
National Association of Biology Teachers. (1990). The responsible use of
animals in biology classrooms, including alternatives to dissection. The American
Biology Teacher, 52 (2), 72.
Offner, S. (1993). The importance of dissection on biology teaching. The
American Biology Teacher, 55, 147-149.
Orlans, F. B. (1988). Debating dissection. The Science Teacher, 55 (8), 36-40.
Sieber, J. E. (1986). Students' and scientists' attitudes on animal research. The
Strauss, r., & Kinzie, M. (1991). High-tech alternatives to dissection. The
Strauss, R., & Kinzie, M. (1994). Student achievement and attitudes in a pilot
study comparing an interactive videodisc to conventional dissection. The American
Biology Teacher, 56, 398-402.
Thomas, R., & Hooper, E. (1991). Simulations: An opportunity we are missing.
Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 23 (4), 497-513.
Zirkel, J. B., & Zirkel, P. A. (1997). Technological alternatives to actual
dissection in anatomy instruction: A review of research. Educational Technology, Nov.-
Dec., 52-56.
U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)
National Library of Education (NLE) Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)
REPRODUCTION RELEASE (Specific Document)
[,(=J Cci
I. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION: Title: '1-/-EC eiCrEc-7:3 Cr Go 41 PLA -reeZ. #9711, /21 AT r-c--7b 1 Is A)
VS. /q Z. 6 7ff C-"ri "/ DA/ 7kiC" ni
JA/ .4 /11 Cr (4 scf-FooL o 0 6,-y C /4-.51S
Author(s): ,p4 .eoft--k) 4 to A-rvb ROAJ D 4- PO- (,( Z--co n)
Corporate Source: LL ( 64-^/ co 6 6 Publication Date:
trit ni E--e2- 2-e. I
II. REPRODUCTION RELEASE: In order to disseminate as widely as possible timely and significant materials of interest to the educational community, documents announced in the
monthly abstract journal of the ERIC system, Resources in Education (RIE), are usually made available to users in microfiche, reproduced paper copy, and electronic media, and sold through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). Credit is given to the source of each document, and, if reproduction release is granted, one of the following notices is affixed to the document.
If permission is granted to reproduce and disseminate the identified document, please CHECK ONE of the following three options and sign at the bottom of the page.
The sample stiaer shown below will be affixed to all Level 1 documents
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS
BEEN GRANTED BY
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
Hi
The sample sticker shown below will be affixed to all Level 2A documents
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN
MICROFICHE, AND IN ELECTRONIC MEDIA FOR ERIC COLLECTION SUBSCRIBERS ONLY,
HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
Level 2A
Check here for Level 1 release, permitting Check here for Level 2A release, permitting reproduction and dissemination In microfiche or other reproduction and dissemination in microfiche and In
ERIC archival media (e.g., electronic) and paper electronic media for ERIC archival collection copy. subscribers only
Sign
please
The sample sticker shown below will be affixed to all Level 28 documents
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN
MICROFICHE ONLY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
2B
\O
Level 2B
Check here for Level 2B release, permitting reproduction and dissemination in microfiche only
Documents will be processed as Indicated provided reproduction quality permits. If permission to reproduce Is granted, but no box Is checked, documents will be processed at Level 1.
I hereby grant to the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) nonexclusive permission to reproduce and disseminate this document as indicated above. Reproduction from the ERIC microfiche or electronic media by persons other than ERIC employees and its system contractors requires permission from the copyright holder. Exception is made for non-profit reproduction by libraries and other service agencies to satisfy information needs of educators in response to discrete inquiries.
signard/aL Printed Name/Position/Title: -1 4,4--gt GA fe A---13 e <J-frfl- 6-9
Organization/Address:
/(1q 1 CL4c1/" C'e C/(-51-5/ Vterr- q 4/ --k? (al
E-Mail Address:
(over)
III. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY INFORMATION (FROM NON-ERIC SOURCE):
If permission to reproduce is not granted to ERIC, or, if you wish ERIC to cite the availability of the document from another source, please provide the following information regarding the availability of the document. (ERIC will not announce a document unless it is publicly available, and a dependable source can be specified. Contributors should also be aware that ERIC selection criteria are significantly more stringent for documents that cannot be made available through EDRS.)
Publisher/Distributor:
Address:
Price:
IV. REFERRAL OF ERIC TO COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION RIGHTS HOLDER:
If the right to grant this reproduction release is held by someone other than the addressee, please provide the appropriate name and address:
Name:
Address:
Send this form to the following ERIC Clearinghouse:
ERIC CLEARINGHOUSE ON ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
1129 SHRIVER LAB COLLEGE PARK, MD 20742-5701
ATTN: ACQUISITIONS
However, if solicited by the ERIC Facility, or if making an unsolicited contribution to ERIC, return this form (and the document being contributed) to:
ERIC Processing and Reference Facility 4483-A Forbes Boulevard Lanham, Maryland 20706
Telephone: 301-552-4200 Toll Free: 800-799-3742
FAX: 301-552-4700 e-mail: [email protected]